WSJ Part 2
Comments
-
Yes, I'll give you that. In fact the British sense of humour is the only thing that saves the British from being just like the Swiss, given that on many other counts (being right-wing, hierarchical, parochial, hostile to Europe and immigrants, and obsessed with status and cars) they are much the same!johnfinch wrote:you find it hard to say anything positive to say about England? What about our comedy?0 -
This is what you need.paulcuthbert wrote:Sorry to disappoint you mate... But 'at a time like this', in all honesty, I don't give a flying fúck what happens.
Whether he's clean or dirty, a free man or banged up for fraud or whatever the hell it is (like I've said before, I don't care for negativities, so I don't pay attention to it - unlike you, ya sad old man) he's still inspired me to ride my bike - something I do every day of my life and love more and more with every pedal rev.
That's not gonna change!
0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
When was that? Back in 2002 Chirac instigated a 'no mercy' policy toward traffic offences in France, the result was that fatalities fell over 30% in a single year, and then fell another 11.4% and 9% in the two following years.johnfinch wrote:I lived in Normandy for a year and the tailgating was terrifying.
It was back in 2000-2001, but I was over there on a very regular basis until 2005 because I had a girlfriend who lived in Le Havre.
Good for Chirac, one of the few things that man could be given to his credit.BikingBernie wrote:
Casualty figures only tell a part of the story. For example, much of the supposed 'safety' is due to the fact that the UK has low levels of cycling and walking as compared to many other countries, and has the lowest level of independent child mobility. In other words, a road system that vulnerable road users are too terrified to use and therefore are not on the road to be run down in the first place can hardly be called a 'safe' road system, whatever the casualty figures show.johnfinch wrote:the UK consistently has some of the safest roads in Europe.
It might also be due to the weather, overpriced and unreliable public transport system, laziness and sprawling suburbs with few if any amenities which encourage car use (and, of course, the obsession with status and cars that you have mentioned).
Don't get me wrong, I think that many English drivers are also idiots, I live in Maidstone where I experience some of the most aggressive driving I've seen in the UK. And the poor little dears think that they're innocent persecuted motorists if the police ever fine them for breaking the law. The Daily Heil told them so.0 -
Whatever the reason, casualty figures that do not reflect exposure levels are pretty meaningless.johnfinch wrote:
It might also be due to the weather, overpriced and unreliable public transport system, laziness and sprawling suburbs with few if any amenities which encourage car use (and, of course, the obsession with status and cars that you have mentioned).BikingBernie wrote:a road system that vulnerable road users are too terrified to use and therefore are not on the road to be run down in the first place can hardly be called a 'safe' road system, whatever the casualty figures show.
And I am sure that you adapt the way you ride in response. For example, by not assuming that drivers will respect your 'right of way', by assuming that drivers might well cut you up at pinch points, by avoiding the busiest roads and so forth. Such adaptive behaviour, even when it stops short of abandoning the public road to the private car user, is one important reason why the objective level of 'danger' and casualty figures are only indirectly related.johnfinch wrote:I live in Maidstone where I experience some of the most aggressive driving I've seen in the UK.
P.s. Below is a report on Chriac's initiative from 2003. Perhaps not surprisingly the message that higher levels of traffic law enforcement, especially with regards speeding, leads to a reduction in road casualties is not one the car-centric UK press has been keen to emphasise.
Chirac clamp cuts French road deaths
Paul Webster in Paris
Observer
Sunday June 29, 2003
Blaring horns, a race through the red lights and overtaking with a centimetre to spare are not the fashion in France this year. As the summer holiday rush begins today, most French drivers are ditching years of reckless road folklore in a new mode of caution.
To the astonishment of Transport Minister Gilles de Robien, there has been a 'real change in behaviour among drivers' that has cut fatal accidents by a third in the first five months of 2003. During the traditionally murderous Easter weekend, the toll dropped by half.
The change follows the introduction of repressive traffic policies after Jacques Chirac, who broke a leg in a car crash in 1978, made his presidential election priority last year an attack on la violence routière. To emphasise the message, the new road safety organiser, Rémy Heitz, is a campaigning public prosecutor who has fought for years to reduce drink-driving.
This year the number of dead on French roads is expected to be about 5,000. A year ago, it was nearer 7,000, a number hailed as a revolution after peak years in the Seventies when deaths approached 14,000.
Even 5,000 dead is a third more than in Britain, but fear of heavy punishment appears to be at the root of a profound change. Motorists can lose their 12-point driving licence in hours by refusing to use a seat belt (three points), telephoning at the wheel (two points), failing to keep a safe distance from the car in front (three points) or ignoring a police warning to stop (six points).
This month, parliament stepped up penalties across the board to coincide with increased police surveillance and the end to years of tolerance over speed limits and drinking. Offenders risk on-the-spot suspensions, a move that has left many foreign visitors stranded and forced to call taxis.
An accident in the Paris suburbs in which a young driver killed three pedestrians brought home the use of stiffer penalties last week when the prosecutor recommended an eight-year prison sentence for reckless driving. A similar offence under the influence of cannabis or alcohol could be punished by a £1 million fine and 10 years in jail.
Air-to-ground links between helicopters and checkpoints have been introduced to enforce safe distances for motorway traffic, where up to 15 people a day are killed or injured by impatient overtakers. Motorists have been pulled up miles after the offence and fined up to £300. One out of three drivers ignored distance restrictions before new controls were enforced.
'We've been told to show no mercy,' a police motorcyclist said, waiting in ambush south of Paris. 'That's what the President wants.'0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
This is what you need.paulcuthbert wrote:Sorry to disappoint you mate... But 'at a time like this', in all honesty, I don't give a flying fúck what happens.
Whether he's clean or dirty, a free man or banged up for fraud or whatever the hell it is (like I've said before, I don't care for negativities, so I don't pay attention to it - unlike you, ya sad old man) he's still inspired me to ride my bike - something I do every day of my life and love more and more with every pedal rev.
That's not gonna change!
Really? Posting the same thing again Bernie? Come on man, a bit of originality puhlease!!The most painful climb in Northern Ireland http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6776_124247198694_548863694_2335754_8016178_n.jpg0 -
Our mechanic here is Tunisian, he lived in France but he came to the USA to establish his own business and said it was hard to get one's own business started there. I've been to France, it is beautiful and I talk about it with him often.0
-
BikingBernie wrote:
And I am sure that you adapt the way you ride in response. For example, by not assuming that drivers will respect your 'right of way', by assuming that drivers might well cut you up at pinch points, by avoiding the busiest roads and so forth. Such adaptive behaviour, even when it stops short of abandoning the public road to the private car user, is one important reason why the objective level of 'danger' and casualty figures are only indirectly related.johnfinch wrote:I live in Maidstone where I experience some of the most aggressive driving I've seen in the UK.
The roads around Maidstone are such that you can just avoid giving people the space to do anything dangerous. I do avoid the busiest routes in and out, but that's more about avoiding traffic fumes than anything else.0 -
Sometimes the way some people respond and I don't mean Dennis but the way others have responded to allegations in internet forums, at times, it almost comes out like the protagonists in question are answering. Need we forget that in fact, there is record of one of the persons in this whole affair that did say she participated in an internet forum.
Another example: One participant when Tyler Hamilton was accused said the charges were real BS but it was the manner the poster said it as well as having a name being something like Zip (a brand of) Wheels, really made me wonder who posts at times especially when the conversation can become so heated.
For the layman's understanding of the judicial system, I would not place much reliance on our general understanding of the matter. This may be acted out under other venues and laws and agencies.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj
Latest WSJ article.Lance Armstrong returned fire at three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond, challenging him to "tell the truth" about Mr. LeMond's second Tour victory, in 1989.
Mr. Armstrong reserved his strong language in Sunday's interview for Mr. LeMond. "We are going to have an opportunity to tell the truth to the authorities, and I hope Greg LeMond will tell the truth about 1989," Mr. Armstrong said, referring to Mr. LeMond's surprising victory in the Tour after a hunting accident had put his career on hold. "He's going to have to tell the truth. I have nothing to hide."
I enjoyed last year's tour and was cheering for Armstrong.
There are so many factors that make this whole story interesting, I don't need to repeat, his being a survivor, being the only racer to win the race 7 straight times, being forsaked by his previous team. There also seems to me to be a cat and mouse element to it. But if Armstrong did dope, I really find the peleton difficult to believe in anyone, if LA did not win, it would be someone else who would be questioned about just as much.
100s of reasons why this story is provocative, I've even heard people say the doping scandals lend interest to the sport, that would be frowned upon by many hard core fans. 0 -
According to this report Armstrong is not bothered by the allegations and 'sleeps like a baby'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jul/19/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-de-france
So, I guess that really means he must be sh*tting himself! Arf!
0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:According to this report Armstrong is not bothered by the allegations and 'sleeps like a baby'
So he's waking up every three hours screaming for his mum?
0 -
It is interesting that Armstrong seems to find it impossible that Lemond could have done what he did without Epo, (even though Epo did not really hit the peleton until around 1991) when he expects everyone else to believe that his own 'wins' were achieved on nothing more than mineral water.cajun_cyclist wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj
Latest WSJ article.Lance Armstrong returned fire at three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond, challenging him to "tell the truth" about Mr. LeMond's second Tour victory, in 1989.
Mr. Armstrong reserved his strong language in Sunday's interview for Mr. LeMond. "We are going to have an opportunity to tell the truth to the authorities, and I hope Greg LeMond will tell the truth about 1989," Mr. Armstrong said, referring to Mr. LeMond's surprising victory in the Tour after a hunting accident had put his career on hold. "He's going to have to tell the truth. I have nothing to hide."
It's almost as though, in reality, Armstrong believes that it is impossible to win the Tour without doping. I wonder why he should think such a thing?
I am a bit surprised that the WSJ has not also reported on Lemond's claim that only last year Armstrong tried to bribe someone with $300,000 in order to get them to claim that Lemond had used Epo.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... claim.html0 -
BikingBernie wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704196404575375550571491506.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Latest WSJ article.Lance Armstrong returned fire at three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond, challenging him to "tell the truth" about Mr. LeMond's second Tour victory, in 1989.
Mr. Armstrong reserved his strong language in Sunday's interview for Mr. LeMond. "We are going to have an opportunity to tell the truth to the authorities, and I hope Greg LeMond will tell the truth about 1989," Mr. Armstrong said, referring to Mr. LeMond's surprising victory in the Tour after a hunting accident had put his career on hold. "He's going to have to tell the truth. I have nothing to hide."
That quote sounds a little to me as if LA might actually 'fess up to something... :?0 -
Must be a thing with cyclist's. This wanting to continue to butt heads after retirement.0
-
the thing is Lemond wasn't on a team sponsored with US Goverment money so they won't be asking him any questions about doping at all.
is this Lance breaking with Omerta too ? We all know what he feels about that0 -
the thing is Lemond wasn't on a team sponsored with US Goverment money so they won't be asking him any questions about doping at all.
Sorry, but that is in the NY Daily News article. Yes, they definitely will be asking questions about doping to Lemond.Last week, The News reported that the Trek Bicycle Corporation had been subpoenaed for documents. The company is a major sponsor of Armstrong's teams. According to Landis, Armstrong's team sold hundreds of pricey Trek racing bikes in order to fund performance-enhancing drug use and banned blood-transfusion schemes. Armstrong has denied those claims.
LeMond has a long, litigious history with Trek, a Wisconsin-based company that used to distribute his line of high-end, signature bicycles. The relationship grew strained in 2001, when Armstrong and LeMond had their falling out and the company's leader, John Burke, got caught between the men. Court papers seem to indicate that LeMond recorded several of Burke's phone calls during that period. In 2008, LeMond hit Trek with a breach-of-contract suit, and Trek countersued. The Trek-LeMond litigation was settled out of court on confidential terms early this year.
LeMond's subpoena orders him to produce documents related to the Trek litigation. Among them will be a deposition of Armstrong's ex-wife, Kristin, in which she was represented by her ex-husband's attorney, Tim Herman, who directed her not to answer a series of questions about Armstrong and doping. Herman sought to have the deposition terminated.
A grand jury typically has up to 18 months to consider bringing an indictment. So far, Armstrong and his backers have gone to great lengths to try to discredit Landis. But as it becomes clear that Landis is not the only person cooperating with the investigation, perceptions of his credibility may yet prove irrelevant. Corroboration is what the government needs, and Novitzky has plenty of experience finding his way there.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... z0uFD2glUs
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_ ... claim.html0 -
I tell you what, Novitzky sounds like a proper badass!
http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/07/19/lanc ... o-lawyers/
LA's lawyer sounds very uneasy.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:I tell you what, Novitzky sounds like a proper badass!
http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/07/19/lanc ... o-lawyers/
LA's lawyer sounds very uneasy.
If a judge sees fit to approve a subpoena of Armstrong, investigators could effectively work around the statute of limitations that has since expired and avoid any legal issues relating to the fact these crimes may have occurred away from U.S. soil.
"That's going to be the formula they'll use," Canny said. "They'll want to get Lance in front of the grand jury, give him immunity and ask him questions. If he doesn't testify in accordance to what they think the truth is, he could be prosecuted for perjury."
Almost sounds as though they already know what the truth is. 0 -
"cajun_cyclist wrote:...customs officials caught Dong at Los Angeles International Airport hiding 14 precious Asian songbirds in his pants
^^ Not a sentence you ever expect to read... surely if your name is 'Dong' you wouldn't try smuggling anything in your pants!0 -
BikingBernie wrote:iainf72 wrote:I tell you what, Novitzky sounds like a proper badass!
http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/07/19/lanc ... o-lawyers/
LA's lawyer sounds very uneasy.
If a judge sees fit to approve a subpoena of Armstrong, investigators could effectively work around the statute of limitations that has since expired and avoid any legal issues relating to the fact these crimes may have occurred away from U.S. soil.
"That's going to be the formula they'll use," Canny said. "They'll want to get Lance in front of the grand jury, give him immunity and ask him questions. If he doesn't testify in accordance to what they think the truth is, he could be prosecuted for perjury."
Almost sounds as though they already know what the truth is.
Don't get overly excited yet BB. Grand Juries do not pronounce guilty or not guilty and have NO pwers of punishment. Add to that the fact that ALL their procedings are secret and I do believe you're gonna be in the dark for a while longer. Plus if they decide there is not enough evidence to go to trial. Well......0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
iainf72 wrote:I tell you what, Novitzky sounds like a proper badass!
http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/07/19/lanc ... o-lawyers/
LA's lawyer sounds very uneasy.
Extraordinary comments under that article!0 -
iainf72 wrote:I tell you what, Novitzky sounds like a proper badass!
http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/07/19/lanc ... o-lawyers/
LA's lawyer sounds very uneasy.
I'm not sure I buy that a lawyer sounds uneasy. All the lawyers involved on either side of this "affair" must just be rubbing their hands together thinking about all the billing time they are going to have on this case. Nervous, uneasy???? I'm thinking that the thought of all the money they will be making has their heads swimming and maybe that's why they appear uneasy. They know that everyone is a loser but them.0 -
iainf72 wrote:I tell you what, Novitzky sounds like a proper badass!
http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/07/19/lanc ... o-lawyers/
LA's lawyer sounds very uneasy.
Unless you can hear a quiver in his voice, consider it media spin, for whatever reason. They're good at that. Did you know, that Iraq "probably" never even had WMDs, let alone being able to deploy them within 45 minutes. Shocking, ain't it?The most painful climb in Northern Ireland http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6776_124247198694_548863694_2335754_8016178_n.jpg0 -
Loving the whole Fraud thing.. Armstrong.. What a rotter :evil: :evil:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-littman/lance-armstrongs-mail-fra_b_650572.html?
0 -
Lemond seems to think otherwise...dennisn wrote:Don't get overly excited yet BB. Grand Juries do not pronounce guilty or not guilty and have NO pwers of punishment. Add to that the fact that ALL their procedings are secret and I do believe you're gonna be in the dark for a while longer. Plus if they decide there is not enough evidence to go to trial. Well......
Leading the investigation is Jeff Novitzky, a Food and Drug Administration criminal investigator who broke open the BALCO doping case in 2003. He reportedly has the cooperation of several cyclists who will help probe whether Armstrong committed sports fraud.
"The evidence will come from the investigation," LeMond said, "and I believe it will be overwhelming."
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_155543340 -
Doobz wrote:Loving the whole Fraud thing.. Armstrong.. What a rotter :evil: :evil:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-littman/lance-armstrongs-mail-fra_b_650572.html?
this article describes the team as the most successfull team in cycling history. not sure I agree with that as surely the ONCE team won more races in that time they just lost out on the big one. T-Mobile and all it's guises also won a fair few races too0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Lemond seems to think otherwise...dennisn wrote:Don't get overly excited yet BB. Grand Juries do not pronounce guilty or not guilty and have NO pwers of punishment. Add to that the fact that ALL their procedings are secret and I do believe you're gonna be in the dark for a while longer. Plus if they decide there is not enough evidence to go to trial. Well......
Leading the investigation is Jeff Novitzky, a Food and Drug Administration criminal investigator who broke open the BALCO doping case in 2003. He reportedly has the cooperation of several cyclists who will help probe whether Armstrong committed sports fraud.
"The evidence will come from the investigation," LeMond said, "and I believe it will be overwhelming."
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_15554334
I think you need to re-read my post. I didn't say whether I thought there will be lots of evidence, or nothing of note. I don't know. I'm simply saying that you shouldn't expect daily updates IF this goes to a Grand Jury. All you'll get is media speculation, LA, GL, FL, and whomever tough guy posturing, lawyer "statements" proclaiming their clients innocense, rightiousness or whatever, etc., etc. The real deal is going to be secret.
As for this Jeff Novitzky, who seems to be becoming some sort of cult hero for the Anti Lance League, well, never heard of him. As for Lemond saying that the evidence will be "overwhelming", just tough guy posturing. My guess is that this MR. Novitzky is thinking to himself "why don't these guys just shut the f**k up". I'm thinking the same way.
None of them is helping their cause, be it "up with LA" or "down with LA".0 -
Someone was having a bad day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQsqS-mY ... r_embedded
Loved the way the spectators all went 'oh!' when he swipes the spectator as if they thought he was genuinely a nice guy, I mean, didn't Renshaw get chucked off the race for that kind of thing?
Fed Fodder Lance being applauded whilst Contador who didn't observe some arcane 'unwritten rule' was being booed on the podium - what is the sport coming to?0 -
micron wrote:Someone was having a bad day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQsqS-mY ... r_embedded
Loved the way the spectators all went 'oh!' when he swipes the spectator as if they thought he was genuinely a nice guy, I mean, didn't Renshaw get chucked off the race for that kind of thing?
Fed Fodder Lance being applauded whilst Contador who didn't observe some arcane 'unwritten rule' was being booed on the podium - what is the sport coming to?
dumb tit.. Reminds me of Evans last year!!0 -
What an arrogant prick!. Love the way Jerkstrong deliberately shoulders the guy before stopping in order to give him the 'the stare'. It would have served him right if the guy in the white T-shirt had decked him.micron wrote:Someone was having a bad day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQsqS-mY ... r_embedded 0
